problems installing Bind 9

webmaster

unread,

Aug 7, 2001, 7:09:34 PM8/7/01

to

As the old versions have security problems I have been attempting to
install version 9 on a machine. It seems to install properly but
hasn't taken over the function from the earlier version.

Obviously there is something linked somewhere on the system
Red Hat v 7.0

Can anybody help?

Simon Waters

unread,

Aug 8, 2001, 4:33:30 AM8/8/01

to

webmaster wrote:
>
> As the old versions have security problems I have been attempting to
> install version 9 on a machine. It seems to install properly but
> hasn't taken over the function from the earlier version.

Most systems install BIND 8 to /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, BIND 9
will attempt to go into /usr/local/bin by default, so you must
modify the PATH or move the old copies.

If moving old copies, do remember about shell hashing, in BASH
if you remove an executable you've run since starting the shell
you need to delete it from the hash, or login again.

Simon Waters

unread,

Aug 8, 2001, 7:28:50 PM8/8/01

to

Simon Waters wrote:
>
> If moving old copies, do remember about shell hashing, in BASH
> if you remove an executable you've run since starting the shell
> you need to delete it from the hash, or login again.

Rather that should be "if you add an executable to a directory
earlier in your path with the same name, the later one is still
cached".

Is it Friday yet.

Simon Waters

unread,

Aug 8, 2001, 7:31:54 PM8/8/01

to

webmaster wrote:
>
> As the old versions have security problems I have been attempting to
> install version 9 on a machine. It seems to install properly but
> hasn't taken over the function from the earlier version.

Sorry are you Wally Winzer?

Just I got a reply from him on this question, but mail to his
address claims I'm a spammer, and I want to figure out why his
MTA doesn't like me.

webmaster

unread,

Aug 9, 2001, 11:13:05 AM8/9/01

to

Simon Waters <Si...@wretched.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9ksi5a$n...@pub3.rc.vix.com>...

> webmaster wrote:
> >
> > As the old versions have security problems I have been attempting to
> > install version 9 on a machine. It seems to install properly but
> > hasn't taken over the function from the earlier version.
>
> Sorry are you Wally Winzer?

No